Who would have expected anything less in 2020?
We have seen the House impeach a President in an election year.
We have seen a pandemic and unprecedented government actions in response to it.
We have seen those government actions lead to enormous economic consequences.
We have seen protests, riots and insurrection in the streets. These have not occurred due to the economic lockdowns but are supposedly due to institutional racism in cities that Democrats have controlled for over 50 years with police departments that are led by minorities.
We have seen a peace accord signed by two major Middle East Muslim countries with Israel that we were told four years ago was impossible to achieve.
We have now seen the death of a liberal icon on the Supreme Court 45 days before a national election.
Of course, that election is still to come as are another three months in a year that will be written about centuries from now in the history books.
What more do we dare expect for the rest of the year?
More specifically right now many are asking what will be the effects of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the national election?
Democrats are already apoplectic about the death of Ginsburg and the fact that the Constitution provides the power to the sitting President to appoint a replacement with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
All you have to do is scan social media and you will quickly see threats of riots, threats to "burn it down", threats to pack the Supreme Court and threats to march to to the residences of Republican politicians to threaten them in their homes if the President and Senate do their constitutional duty.
In fact, Nancy Pelosi has even threatened to impeach President Trump again in order to delay a vote on the Supreme Court nominee if she has to.
Why would the death and possible replacement of one unelected jurist cause so much angst and anger?
I wrote about this over two years ago when Justice Kennedy retired and President Trump had the responsibility to appoint a successor.
This was a typical response at that time.
We saw they really meant it with the charade and circus that the Democrats put Brett Kavanaugh through during his confirmation process.
Why is the Supreme Court everything for Liberals?
I thought the Constitution was everything in The United States of America.
The Democrats know that without the Supreme Court "making law" they have little hope in realizing their progressive ideals. They have generally failed in establishing any of their agenda through Constitutional means. Most everything they care about in the last 30 years did not come from legislation or constitutional amendment but by the opinions of five Supreme Court justices. Look no further than abortion and gay marriage as prime examples. Or the affirmation of the constitutionality of Obamacare.
That is why the Supreme Court is everything to Liberals. Every new appointment to the Supreme Court that President Trump makes puts their agenda at risk. They know that they do not have the support of the necessary majorities of American voters to support and extend their progressive agenda. They do not want to follow the Constitution to get there. Our Founders wanted a clear consensus before we made radical changes to the rules that governed us. The Democrats simply don't want to wait and do the heavy lifting necessary to get what they want.
Democrats are adamant that the President Trump should not nominate a successor to RBG and the Senate should not confirm any new justice until after Inauguration Day in January, 2021.
The problem with this argument is that the American people already had their voice recorded. They elected Donald Trump with the understanding that he would serve a four-year term. They also elected the current sitting Senators in 2014, 2016 and 2018 who would provide the necessary advise and consent on any nomination during their six-year terms. Everyone knew when those votes were cast that there were likely to be Supreme Court vacancies that would need to be filled.
Much is being made of the fact that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not allow the Obama nomination of Merrick Garland to proceed to replace Justice Scalia in the last year of the Obama presidency.
However, that involved a situation in which the President and Senate were of opposing parties. The precedent strongly supported waiting for an intervening election. This article by Dan McLaughlin in the National Review explains that precedent.
The norm in these cases strongly favored holding the seat open for the conflict between the two branches to be resolved by the presidential election. That is what Republicans did in 2016. The voters had created divided government, and the Senate was within its historical rights to insist on an intervening election to decide the power struggle. Had there been no conflict between the branches to submit to the voters for resolution, there would have been no reason for delay.
In almost all cases involving a split in the parties in control of the Presidency and Senate the nominee was not confirmed if a nomination was put forth. This shows it was a waste or time and effort to proceed with a vote on the nominee when there is that division of power.
Former Vice President Joe Biden declared in 2016 that if he were chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he would push ahead with the nomination of a Supreme Court justice "even a few months before a presidential election."Biden penned a New York Times op-ed in March 2016—just weeks after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia—which accused Senate Republicans that year of neglecting their "Constitutional duty" by stonewalling President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee until after the November general election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell cited a so-called "Biden rule" as justification for delaying Merrick Garland's nomination, pointing to a 1992 Biden speech that demanded President Bush wait until after that year's election to appoint a Supreme Court replacement.
It is almost impossible to predict what is going to happen in November considering what is going on in the country right now.The pace of events is overwhelming. In fact, it would not surprise me if we have yet to see what historians will later point to as the most consequential issue in this election.